The third is that if he professes ignorance, his claim should be investigated; but if he gives an incorrect description, he is entitled to nothing. In my view, this is the most judicious of these opinions.

Section

A person who finds lost property may act in one of three ways:

First: he picks it up without intending either to take charge of it as lost property or to misappropriate it.

Second: he picks it up intending to take charge of it as lost property.

Third: he picks it up intending to misappropriate it.

The first case is exemplified by someone who finds a garment and picks it up, thinking that it belongs to some people ahead of him, intending to ask them about it. If they neither recognize it nor claim it, he may return it to where he found it, without incurring liability. Ibn al-Qāsim stated this in al-Mudawwana, and Ibn Wahb related it from Mālik. This is because he had neither taken possession of it nor wrongfully interfered with it, but had merely brought it to the attention of those he thought owned it. The rules governing lost property had therefore not become binding upon him. This applies if he returns it shortly afterwards; if he returns it after a long interval, however, he is liable.

The second case is where he picks it up intending to take charge of it as lost property. According to Ibn al-Qāsim, he thereby becomes obliged to safeguard it and announce that it has been found. If he puts it back after picking it up, he is liable for it. Ashhab, however, said that he incurs no liability if he returns it to its original place, whether shortly afterwards or later. He need not have witnesses to its return, but must swear that he returned it to its original place. If he returns it elsewhere, he is liable, just as someone entrusted with a deposit who borrows from it and then restores what he borrowed is not thereby released from liability. Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion is clearer and more evident.

The third case is where he takes it intending to misappropriate it; he is liable for it. The intention with which he picked it up can be known only from his own account. If it perishes while in his keeping, or he claims that it has perished, and he claims that he picked it up as lost property in order to safeguard it for its owner, his account is accepted without requiring him to swear an oath, unless he is suspected. According to Mālik’s position, this applies whether or not he called witnesses when he picked it up, because calling witnesses, as related in the report transmitted